"Give credit to Iran for successfully diverting attention from its real strategic goals.It has led the world to assume that its immediate objective for the nuclear bomb is Israel. Iran's first objective is to displace Saudi dominance of the mideast (based on oil) with Iranian power, based on nuclear armament.Once that is achieved,streching the new "Persian Empire" north through the Moslem states of the extinct USSR is easy. ..... LOL: Iran's economy is a disaster. Their society is racked by rampant, unemployment, corruption, crime, drug use and prostitution on scales unprecedented for a so called Islamic theocracy. Sanctions have crippled its economy and oil out put .... Iran's greatest ally Syria is in total disarray ... Iran is not even a paper tiger. Iran is toilet paper ...

"Once that is achieved,economics ,etc will determine whether the next objective is toward Europe (through Turkey) or Asia (through Pakistan).Then what???" .... then what .... a new Iranian revolution that hangs its theocratic mullahs and re-establishes relations with Europe and the USA.

Iran is at a crossroads in it's history. The time of revolution which worked in the 1980s during the Cold War is over. Does Iran = Persia, live in the past? or do they adapt to the fact that they are living in the 21st century.

Times have changed, we live in the world of iPods, iPads and wifi communications. Old ideas should be gently discarded.

LOL ... when Israel launced the six day war or the Lebanon war or its attack on the Gaza it didn't publicize the event. Same goes when Israel attacked iraq and syria with its nuclear facilities.

Israeli spy satelites and intelligence know that Iran is way behind schedule and that Israel is doing is to provoke the Iranian leaders into doing stupid things like bungled diplomat attacks, etc.

Israel is making the iranian leadership look like the total fools they are.

FYI: when Israel stops talking about attacking Iran, then you should get worried. HINT: if (and when) Israel takes out Iranian nuclear facilities, they will have the full support of a newly elected US president obama ..

Interesting thought - I guess we will never know or rather we will know after it happens. OTOH I would not be surprised if this were true. After all there are no real benefits of bombing persian instalations, so provoking the lunatic to do silly things may make the regime in Tehran to fall.
What a silly situation. The only bad thing about it is that some people will most likely die.

Iran faces a delicate issue. On the one hand it wants to show the world all it’s got and put it at ease, while on the other hand it fears that such show 'n tell will give its enemies a roadmap to bomb it.
Saddam Hussein faced a similar dilemma ten years ago. Though he wanted the world to know he had nothing to hide, he also wanted to bluff his archenemy Iran into believing Iraq still had WMD.
Bluffing did not go well for Saddam, and it might not go well for Ahmadinejad.
But since the price tag for ridding Saddam proved high, maybe we ought to reflect what we are asking of Iran now. On the eve of a threatened attack, we are asking it to take us to the depths of its arsenal and show us all it's got.
Such great expectations are a sign we have been talking to our friends too long and are in need of a broader perspective. Exactly when was the last time we asked Pakistan, India, China or Russia to show us their arsenal?
“But those countries are not advocating the destruction of Israel.”
True, but Israel is not a thorn on their side either.
Surely, however, we can see beyond the hyperboles and figure out their underlying purpose. Or have we forgotten that not all Iranians are thrilled with Ahmadinejad?
He sure hasn’t forgotten.
Nor has he forgotten that that his countrymen hate Israel even more. So he tells them that Israel will be wiped from the face of the earth. Expectantly, this nonsense unites them against a common enemy. It is even a diversion from the misery and isolation brought on by his theocratic regime.
Quite clever work by Ahmadinejad -- and not a rial spent or a bullet fired.
So why are we letting the crazy talk about destroying Israel get us all worked-up -- to the point of turning the world topsy-turvy again.
Can we not see the desperate attempts of an unpopular regime simply trying to hold on?

Give credit to Iran for successfully diverting attention from its real strategic goals.It has led the world to assume that its immediate objective for the nuclear bomb is Israel. Iran's first objective is to displace Saudi dominance of the mideast (based on oil) with Iranian power, based on nuclear armament.Once that is achieved,streching the new "Persian Empire" north through the Moslem states of the extinct USSR is easy. Once that is achieved,economics ,etc will determine whether the next objective is toward Europe (through Turkey) or Asia (through Pakistan).Then what???

This liberal statement not always holds.
Recall peace attempts with Hitler.
Instead of few millions killed if Nazi Germany attacked earlier , we got ~50 millions.
This is one of the sins liberals often made, this come from their good will , but sometimes torn apart from reality.

Well that is a nonsense I am afraid. The calculation speculative as it is may even be close to what could have been achieved had UK and France attacked earlier. Yet that was politically impossible. Nobody wanted to die for freedom of Czechs, Austrians or Poles. That is a fact. People often do not want to live in reality preferring delusion instead till the reality holds them back. I suppose you could convince people if you had a proof only this proof meant you had to wait till it was too late. Sad but true.

Nonsense it's a bit exaggeration, speculative I agree.
Politically impossible , not big deal to create 'casus belli'
and brain-wash with patriotism.
But yes Europe was still recovering from WWI and it would be very painful move, plus as you mentioned people are lazy and they hope things might be solved by themselves.
Anyway my point was that being ALWAYS peaceful is not
clever since at the end, too late war beginning, will end up with much heavier losses.So sometimes equation is peace='more deaths'.

Those who lived in the 1920's and 1930's remember all to well the horrors of the First World War. As you may recall, there was a massive public protest movement for Disarmament; and, while the politicians were suspicious about Germany's adherence to the Versailles treaty [since they were secretly working with the Soviets to re-arm], the liberal democracies' leaders had to follow the will of the people.

Therefore, I think it entirely realistic that appeasement / isolationism will always be a last hope of the general public [since it's he general public that will pay with either life or limb].

How bold and noble one must feel, from the protection of the wood-paneled office, surrounded by the best toys the world has to offer, to blithely and so casually comment on the inevitability of war in another land.

And not a word of possible civilian casualties, either in Iran or elsewhere. Not a word.

There is an insanity in the air and not all of it is circulating in the airspace above Iran.

Don't bomb Iran......at least until you have bombed Syria and taken out Al Assad.
Get the low hanging fruit first.
The Dominones fall in ordered succession.
It is better to deal with one crisis, consolidate and then head out for the next crisis.
Each day Syria grows bloodier and more desperate. And Iran grows weaker and more withdrawn.
And sanctions bite harder and harder.
Concentrate firepower.
Use your jets first in Syria.
Leaverage airspace and bases in Syria.

Can anyone explain this to me? The one thing I cannot figure out is why Israel has nukes in the first place, and why America supports Israel having nukes.

Israel claims that it will never "introduce" nuclear weapons to the Middle East, implying that Israel would only use its nukes in retaliatory strikes, which is a service that the USA is more than happy to provide. (It's pretty obvious that if Israel didn't have nukes and Iran nuked Israel then the USA would be very happy to retaliatory nuke Iran.)

However no other country in the Middle East has nukes, and the main reason (or at least one main reason) Iran is seeking nukes is because Israel already has them.

So why doesn't Israel just give up its nukes, along with Iran giving up its nuclear program, in a peace treaty? Surely seeing as how Israel would never "introduce" nukes to the Middle East, Iran willingly giving up its nukes in a peace treaty would be the better solution for Israel?

And even if Iran isn't willing to give up its nukes, it's still worth proposing such a peace treaty, because then such an action universally gives Israel the moral high ground.

I've asked my close Jewish friends (Israeli Jews; not those pseudo American ones) this same question, but nobody has been able to provide me with a logical response yet. Perhaps TE readers can do me this favor? Thanks....

I asked why Israel hasn't OFFERED such a treaty yet. Even if Iran rejects the offer (which it probably will), then Israel would be able to keep its nukes and its warplanes and still have the moral high ground over Iran.

Of course in the highly unlikely scenario that Iran agreed to accept such a treaty for bilateral disarmament, then Israel would have nothing to worry about.

So OFFERING such a treaty is a win-win situation for Israel, regardless of what Iran chooses to do.

Iran wouldn't give up its nukes, because according to them they aren't building nukes. Israel has those nukes, not just to protect from a nuclear attack, but as a sort of 'last resort' in case of an overwhelming conventional attack. Israel started making nukes in the late 60s after decades of near constant warfare. Apart from the very short Yom Kippur War there hasn't been a serious invasion of Israel since. The nukes are a deterrence against invasion, not just nuclear attack. Only those wanting a nuclear conflict would invade a nuclear power.

"Iran wouldn't give up its nukes, because according to them they aren't building nukes."

Well Israel doesn't admit to having nukes either. But I'm sure a peace treaty can be hammered out behind closed doors if desired...

"but as a sort of 'last resort' in case of an overwhelming conventional attack."

But that is the complete opposite of Israeli rhetoric. Israel has stated many many times that it would never "introduce" nukes to the region. So if what you say is true, then Israel must be lying.

Also America's military exerts overwhelming dominance in the region, and will continue to do so in any foreseeable future, so the possibility of Israel being successfully invaded while America is in the region is zero. If desired, Israel could give up its nukes in a peace treaty but still maintain the knowledge and facilities to build them and to churn them out quickly if Israeli-Arab relations turn sour in the future.

I don't think that Israel is likely to give up their nukes to keep the moral high ground. What you are suggesting is a nice way to keep the peace on paper but in reality it just won't work like that and we can't expect it to

No nation should just assume that an 'ally' will have their backs 100% of the time. By your logic there is no need for Israel to have as much conventional military strength as it has. Likewise, there is little to no need for any NATO ally to have an aircraft carrier (after all, the US has more than enough projective capability to go around in that area). And of course Israel would nuke, or threaten to nuke, any nation that swept in and was going to wipe it out. That's what nukes exist for. They exist as first strike (against other nuclear powers) and last resort (against everyone else) deterrents.

"By your logic there is no need for Israel to have as much conventional military strength as it has."

This is where you're mistaken.

Nuclear armed countries other than the US and Russia (Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel) all have the capacity to build many thousands of nuclear weapons easily, as the US and Russia have done. However they don't because they realize that nukes in the world, regardless of who owns them, is bad, so they instead choose to maintain a "minimum deterrence" policy by only having a few hundred nukes, and hope that the US and Russia will enter into bilateral agreements of cutting nukes so that those 2 will eventually be reduced to minimum deterrence status too.

The problem with small insignificant countries such as Israel having nukes is that it will prompt other small insignificant countries, or even large regional powers such as Brazil or Argentina to develop them. (Read this week's leader for more information)

Thus Israel is much better to fall under America's nuclear umbrella (and such an umbrella really is secure) rather than entering into nuclear arms races with its neighbors.

So basically what I'm saying is that nukes are an entirely different game (as compared to conventional weapons) and everyone in the world realizes that a less nuclear world is in the best interest of all, which is why countries such as China that can easily build many thousands of nukes quickly have decided to not join America and Russia as nuclear superpower, as long as the present status quo and slow denuclearization continues.

I can answer your question Modern Troll. I hope you do not get the wrong idea about what I am saying though. Before I can answer, I need to say something for the record,"I believe in Israel's right to exist, just as any other nation or group of people have a right to exist."

Israel, like many of its Arab neighbors, are mostly controlled by their minority of religious extremists. Most Jew's/Israeli's do not share the same mentaility, but sadly they don't have a strong voice in politics like the religious fanatics do. The religious fanatics wish to fulfill some ancient prophecy of controlling land that millions of people are already living on and off of. Therefor, it isn't about living in peace with Iran, it's about absolute and total superiority of everyone in the region, in order to complete a plan that would require millions to lose their homes. Obviously they would fight back, so no nation may remain anywhere along the same level as Israel's DF.

Your proposal of what Israel should do was a great one and was very logical. Do you really believe all of the Israeli, American, European, political leaders have not been able to concieve such a plan? If the leaders (perhaps on both sides of this issue) really had peacful intentions, we wouldn't have gotten to the point which we are in now. War is coming, the drums are beating loudly, can't you hear it? Fanatical Israeli prophecy wipes off one more road block in their conquest, and the American military industrial complex lives on...

Just because you can build 'many thousands of nuclear weapons' doesn't mean there is any reason to. You don't need a thousand nukes to be a deterrence, you don't even need a hundred. Depending on the size of your most-likely enemy you might only need a dozen at best. Nations aren't stockpiling absurd, Cold War era amounts of nukes because they think that all nukes are bad. What nuclear nation has completely disarmed? None. They realized that having such a ridiculous quantity of nukes was crazy (and economically unsound).

To call Israel 'small and insignificant' is profoundly ignorant of Israel and the Mid-East in general. Israel has the 24th largest economy in the world and, whether the Arab world likes it or not, is the most developed nation in the Mid East (heck, its well developed by European standards even)

Israel has had nukes for years and isn't in a nuclear arms race with anyone and certainly isn't prompting South American powers to do anything. Iran is, according to you, in an arms race with Israel... but it isn't a race until Iran actually produces something viable.

"Israel has had nukes for years and isn't in a nuclear arms race with anyone"

Actually Israel is in a nuclear arms race with Iran.
------
"To call Israel 'small and insignificant' is profoundly ignorant of Israel and the Mid-East in general. Israel has the 24th largest economy in the world and"

And the 24th largest economy in the world makes Israel what? Small and insignificant?
------
"Nations aren't stockpiling absurd, Cold War era amounts of nukes because they think that all nukes are bad. What nuclear nation has completely disarmed? None."

Pragmatism vs idealogical awareness. As long as some countries (USA and Russia) have lots of nukes then other major powers must maintain minimum deterrence abilities, even if they hate nukes themselves.
------
Seriously you seemed to have ignored my entire response and simply regurgitated what you had stated in your previous post.

Modern Troll, you wanted an answer, and I gave you one. Its simple deterrence, its an idea that's older than nukes. Nukes are just the new weapon in town, they are just far more dangerous than galleons or dreadnoughts. Israel (like most nations that have potential enemies nearby or near their interests) lives by the ancient, cliched adage "Si vis pacem, para bellum". However, as demonstrated by their strikes against the Iraqi reactor in 1981, they aren't likely to sit around and just let a hostile neighbor (and Iran is certainly hostile towards Israel, there is absolutely no denying that) become a viable threat. Given their cultural and national history... not waiting to be attacked first isn't exactly something that you can blame them for.

Well Iran does not admit to pursuing a nuclear arms program and Israel does not admit to having nukes at all, so it's difficult to provide official evidence. However you only need to Google the numerous Op Eds in credible Western newspapers on the Iranian nuclear program for your answer.

"And again you assert that Israel is 'small and insignificant', demonstrating a complete and utter lack of awareness of the politics of the region.'

Please back up your claims before making absurd ones. There are 8 nuclear armed nations in the world and Israel has the 24th largest economy. So why should Israel be one of the nuclear armed nations?

You can define "small and insignificant" however you like, but you can never rationally make the argument that Israel is "large and significant" enough to be a nuclear power. (If you did make such an argument then you would have to also acknowledge that the 23 larger economies are also large and significant enough to obtain nukes.)

Since Israel already has nuclear weapons (most likely has had them for decades, acquiring them at the height of the Cold War) they are not engaged in an arms race with Iran. Its like saying the US is engaged in an arms race with Iran. Iran is trying to play catch-up. Iran is the only one racing.

Your continued statements that one of the region's most powerful nations and the US's strongest ally in that area is 'small and insignificant' is jingoistic at best and uneducated at worst, though neither of those are good. Why *shouldn't* Israel have nukes? Its easy to see why say, the Netherlands doesn't or Italy. Afterall, they have enjoyed relative peace since 1945 and aren't surrounded by nations/groups pledging their outright destruction. In terms of human development Israel actually ranks higher than several recognized nuclear powers (France, UK). Why shouldn't a well developed nation, surrounded by potential enemies, take measures to insure its continued existence via a policy of military deterrence? Your arguments are falling apart and your disdain for Israel is showing. Better go cover up.

"Since Israel already has nuclear weapons (most likely has had them for decades, acquiring them at the height of the Cold War) they are not engaged in an arms race with Iran."

Yes they are. Just because Iran didn't have the resources to develop them before doesn't mean Iran isn't in an arms race with Israel. (ANY rational observer can tell you the same)

Iran isn't in an arms race with the US because it knows it can never compete with the US, but it can compete with Israel.
-----
"Your continued statements that one of the region's most powerful nations and the US's strongest ally in that area is 'small and insignificant' is jingoistic at best and uneducated at worst, though neither of those are good."

Again you completely ignored what I said and continue to spew your garbage. By your logic the 23 larger economies should also have nukes if Israel is 'large and significant' enough to have them.
-----
"Your arguments are falling apart and your disdain for Israel is showing."

Nah your super duper pro-Jewish bias has been long showing; too late to cover up for you.......

Just FYI if Israel keeps taking the line that you advocate, then Iran can and will eventually develop nukes.
.
Why do you think Russia and China are vetoing any UN resolutions against Iran? Why do you think India and China are continuing to buy Iranian oil despite Western sanctions?
.
It's because they see Western hypocrisy while you, as an American (a very likely Jewish one) cannot. Russia, China, and India certainly do not want Iran to have nukes, but they dislike Western hypocrisy more. (Just go read any Russian, Chinese, or Indian newspaper and you'll realize this obvious fact)

BTW I've actually been defending Israel on this website very often against those REAL anti-Semitic posters in the non-US section, but yet you apparently consider anything that's not super duper pro-Israel "distain for israel." (And I do indeed have many Israeli friends whom I hang out with often IRL, and even they are not nearly as radical as most American Republicans appear to be.)

Your rhetoric may work in the US, but the rest of the world isn't going to buy it....

Israel'spopulation is about 6 million, while Muslims in the Middle East is 288 million. It is like one Jew fighting 48 Muslims. The world's Muslim population is 1.5 billion (1,500 million) Like 1 Jew fighting 250 Muslims. For that reason Israel needs superior weapons, and cannot fight with stones or with bow and arrows.
Also the rules for nuclear weapos in 1950 when the Jews had nuclear weapons was DIFFERENT than the present day.
Muslims believe if they die in battle they all go to paradise. Jews do not have that teaching. There are news reports, that Amadinejad and the mullahs had reserved plenty of accommodation in 5 star hotels, for the arival of the 12 Imam. (Some kind of mysterious holy man)
To hurry the arrival of the 12 Imam, Ahmadinejad believes that the world must be in a turmoil. Nuclear war would bring the Imam back.

It's so unfortunate to see a well known publication like Economist writes things that are not even close to reality. Iranian nation has been prisoner of this regime since 1979, when their revolution was stolen by clerics. We Iranians are disgusted by the actions of our government and it is partly because of the foreign support that our government receives that we have not been able to overthrow them yet. We don't want nuclear weapon. We don't even want nuclear energy. We want freedom. We want human rights. Stop lying. Your lies have strengthened this regime since its first day. Shame on you.

I am an apposition for my government but if you attack my country I by sure defend my country until the last drop of my blood...God willing...We did not attack any country for 250 years .. even before the American history...and last but not least please do not forgot the power of believers of God.

Saman...your response is interesting. What foreign support are you talking about? Why don't you want nuclear energy? What are the lies that the Economist is telling? How have the lies been strengthening the regime?

The fact is, the US/Israel is an ideological state, which doesn't accept any ideology other than its own, and sees it as a threat to it's existence: The American Dream. All the wars and meddling in other countries just because they are different, are for this reason.

In this case, Iran is also a very ideological state, that unlike other developing countries doesn't bow to US.
But the problem is that even if Iran went nuclear it would never launch a nuclear attack against Israel or any of it's enemies, even if only due to the risk of American retaliation.

Israel wants to bomb Iran, they are the aggressor! War=Aggression. I fail to understand the heightened hostility towards Iran. Iran is being reactive, to international threats and illegal sanctions. I wonder how the west would react if the tables were turned?!

The holocaust is no longer a factor and shouldn't play in the minds of anyone. 20 "Holocaust"-like atrocities have been committed since that period, but we/media (more the latter) continue emphasizing the Iranian threat of destruction, when Israel are the only threat to the region.

Correction: Iranian leaders are ANTI-ZIONIST, not ANTI-SEMITIC. For thousands of year Jews have been welcome in Iran and hold a seat in parliament. Yes, being a minority they may feel less integrated in government and society, but at least there isn't the disproportionate power the Jewish community hold in the west (this is fact, not anti-semitic).

The fact that Jewish schools are required to be open on Saturdays and run by government appointed muslims in Iran is pretty anti-semitic. Its also quite anti-semitic that Jews in Iran can't become military officers. Indeed they are 'less integrated in government and society' because the Iranian government keeps them that way. That's anti-semitic.

That's the reason why those said jews and that for sure don't represent the true jewish people restrict the world to their own world and so have short sighted view and blocked hearts about the real world well beyond their noses. The major problem is that they are followed and strongly supported by those said americans who for sure don't represent the real America and the real world.

It is unfortunate that the hard core radicals who had planted and executed the immoral, illegal and inhumane Iraq war, in which America has not lost only her prestige and image and trillions of dollars including more than 5000 American souls but the USA and the entire world has been almost bankrupted. But the same gang is once again planning another more deadliest and far damaging war with Iran with no apparent reason but to topple the Iranian government similarly they had thought to topple Saddam Hussain, then Gadhafi and now in Iran. Hope, American majority will wake-up and take a stand to stop this madness which is definitely not in America's Interest but surely it may take in demise of the great Empire for ever, like many in the past history.

I think that there are very few that are beating a path toward war. I think that most Americans would rather have this crisis resolved diplomatically [considering the facts that the benefit of bombing enrichment facilities are low as opposed to costs of the consequences].

Unfortunately, the one aspect that doesn't seem to be mentioned in this article is the US backlash against Israel and AIPAC if the whole region goes sideways in a major conflagration over hitting a few targets that will only postpone enrichment for three years.